Report: public perception of the humanities

[Stockmann]

Better to study something you're interested in as an undergrad and do a good job at it than study something that will only make you miserable for a lucrative field you'll probably be washed out of anyway. 

Things are rarely that black-and-white, though. Bright students can often apply their talents to a broad range of subjects, and can pursue interests without a clear lucrative application as hobbies, etc. For instance, someone interested in French literature could become fluent in French (and reap the benefits in terms of cultural awareness, possible work-related use of the language, neurological benefits, etc) and read French literature without majoring in French or having to do so in some academic or professional capacity, just as I've read, say, The Masque of the Red Death of my own volition rather than for any kind of course or in any professional capacity. On the other hand, as I think Polly pointed out, humanities majors are probably not a great choice for someone who is not already wealthy - in my country, languages and philosophy are some of the lowest-paid majors.

[polly_mer]

There are a number of studies that show that a few years out, humanities majors earn close to what other majors do.

The caveats on the studies I've seen are that students who come from good middle class backgrounds with a solid K-12 education to get into a good college tend to do fine after college.  Yes, it's  quite logical that people who can count on being fine even without college generally do fine after college.

Choosing one good enough choice instead of maximizing money potential is a luxury reserved for people who can spend 4 years as an extended experience instead of the best shot at not stuck in poverty.  People who can what they want to do most of the time and still have their basic needs met are not the people who need college and need to choose wisely in college.

When I was being brought up, the idea that one got a job because of what they wanted to do all day was laughable and childish.  Instead, people get jobs to pay bills and be competent adults; it's childish to expect to spend most of one's time having fun.  Employers don't have to pay very much for things that people want to do and most people can do; employers pay good money to have things done that are hard enough to do that most people cannot do them nor will they do them without reasonable pay.

[Caracal]

There are a number of studies that show that a few years out, humanities majors earn close to what other majors do.

The caveats on the studies I've seen are that students who come from good middle class backgrounds with a solid K-12 education to get into a good college tend to do fine after college.  Yes, it's  quite logical that people who can count on being fine even without college generally do fine after college.

Choosing one good enough choice instead of maximizing money potential is a luxury reserved for people who can spend 4 years as an extended experience instead of the best shot at not stuck in poverty.  People who can what they want to do most of the time and still have their basic needs met are not the people who need college and need to choose wisely in college.

When I was being brought up, the idea that one got a job because of what they wanted to do all day was laughable and childish.  Instead, people get jobs to pay bills and be competent adults; it's childish to expect to spend most of one's time having fun.  Employers don't have to pay very much for things that people want to do and most people can do; employers pay good money to have things done that are hard enough to do that most people cannot do them nor will they do them without reasonable pay.

This is all built on extremely flimsy logic. Even if you really assume that everyone's goal is to "maximize money potential" it doesn't follow that choosing a major that earns more on average is going to help any particular individual get a higher paying job. In fact, in lots of cases it would do the opposite. I wouldn't have been maximizing my earning potential if I'd decided to try to be an engineering, math or chemistry major. I would have been investing time and money in trying to do things I'm not good at. The smarter move is to concentrate on strengths.

Few jobs are mostly fun, but people don't usually do well at their jobs unless they find aspects of them satisfying and enjoyable. Do what you love isn't good advice, but neither is "do something you hate because you think it will earn you more money." Most of the time it won't, because  people aren't very good at things they hate.

Obviously, we all have to learn to do things we dislike and struggle with. However, that usually means figuring out how to do things that are part of a job you otherwise are skilled at. I'm pretty bad at organizing classes and keeping everything straight on the CMS. Over the years I've figured out how to do this part of my job adequately enough, but I don't think I'm likely to move into a successful second career as an executive assistant.

[marshwiggle]

Few jobs are mostly fun, but people don't usually do well at their jobs unless they find aspects of them satisfying and enjoyable. Do what you love isn't good advice, but neither is "do something you hate because you think it will earn you more money." Most of the time it won't, because  people aren't very good at things they hate.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone advise people to go into careers they hate just because the money is good. The much more realistic approach is to think of all kinds of things that you don't mind doing, and trying to identify any of those that lead more directly to solid employment. The example I've given before is that having kids who were all musical and enjoyed theatre, I never encouraged those as career choices because those rarely lead to reliable employment. They can still be enjoyable hobbies, and decent employment will allow time and money to pursue them.

[Parasaurolophus]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone advise people to go into careers they hate just because the money is good.

I think we hear about it second- and third-hand pretty frequently, actually, especially where professional degrees such as medicine, law, and engineering are concerned, because there can be a lot of familial pressure to enter these fields. Andrew Yang's story isn't all that uncommon, for example, and my impression is that many more people stay in that line of work than ever feel capable of leaving it. I personally know a fair few lawyers who absolutely loathe their day-jobs working for big firms, but who feel trapped into doing it forever. I've met a few doctors who hated their jobs, too, although IIRC they all ended up leaving medicine.

[Stockmann]

@Caracal: Yes, but strengths can often be directed along wildly varying career paths. For example, someone strong in logic and mathematical reasoning could try to become an academic mathematician - but could also become an actuary or become an expert in optimization, or in cryptography and cyber-security, etc. Someone with a flair for physics could seek to become an academic physicist - or could become an engineer, etc. Famously, acting is a good way to prepare for a career in politics.
Also, it's not just about money per se. A career path might pay OK if you make it but require too many sacrifices (like doing a PhD and at least one postdoc...) or you may value the autonomy in some fields (being a freelancer, etc). Or the relative job security and steady pay in some jobs (tenure being one of the few remaining rational reasons for wanting to become an academic). A job you don't love may be far more bearable if when you clock out, you really clock out until the next day (versus taking work home). Pay and loving doing the work itself or not are not the only variables here. There is research showing that one of the biggest things for job satisfaction is autonomy - nobody likes being micro-managed.

...The much more realistic approach is to think of all kinds of things that you don't mind doing, and trying to identify any of those that lead more directly to solid employment. The example I've given before is that having kids who were all musical and enjoyed theatre, I never encouraged those as career choices because those rarely lead to reliable employment. They can still be enjoyable hobbies, and decent employment will allow time and money to pursue them.

This. In some fields, very few who try can get reliable, living-wage employment. It makes no sense to encourage someone to go into these fields professionally, as they can enjoy them as hobbies. Someone with an interest in these fields might be much better off pursuing a career with enough pay and leisure time to pursue hobbies.

[apl68]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone advise people to go into careers they hate just because the money is good.

I think we hear about it second- and third-hand pretty frequently, actually, especially where professional degrees such as medicine, law, and engineering are concerned, because there can be a lot of familial pressure to enter these fields. Andrew Yang's story isn't all that uncommon, for example, and my impression is that many more people stay in that line of work than ever feel capable of leaving it. I personally know a fair few lawyers who absolutely loathe their day-jobs working for big firms, but who feel trapped into doing it forever. I've met a few doctors who hated their jobs, too, although IIRC they all ended up leaving medicine.

I also think of students pressured into majoring in fields that they have no interest in or aptitude for.  That sounds like a recipe for both a miserable college experience and a stillborn effort at getting into a lucrative field.  If they're well-prepared and diligent students, they'll probably be okay eventually.  But they could experience a lot of trouble in the meantime that might have been avoided if they had been allowed to major into something more congenial.

[apl68]

...The much more realistic approach is to think of all kinds of things that you don't mind doing, and trying to identify any of those that lead more directly to solid employment. The example I've given before is that having kids who were all musical and enjoyed theatre, I never encouraged those as career choices because those rarely lead to reliable employment. They can still be enjoyable hobbies, and decent employment will allow time and money to pursue them.

This. In some fields, very few who try can get reliable, living-wage employment. It makes no sense to encourage someone to go into these fields professionally, as they can enjoy them as hobbies. Someone with an interest in these fields might be much better off pursuing a career with enough pay and leisure time to pursue hobbies.

But majoring as an undergrad in a field like English or history or what have you doesn't mean you're condemned to try making a go of it in a nearly-impossible employment field!  Graduate majors in these areas often regret it, yes, but undergrad majors in such fields have much better prospects.  No, they don't have the direct pipeline to lucrative fields that MDs and engineers do.  Again, though, they can't all be MDs and engineers.  There are many, many work fields that don't have such a direct college-to-profession pipeline for which a good undergrad humanities major can be quite competitive. 

So why shouldn't they major in a field they have an honest interest in, especially since that means they'll likely be encouraged to try harder and get a better education in a major they like?  I've noticed that lately even business magazines are publishing articles that make the point that a poor, unmotivated STEM major is probably not going to do as well as a solid, interested major in a less obviously lucrative field.

[marshwiggle]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone advise people to go into careers they hate just because the money is good.

I think we hear about it second- and third-hand pretty frequently, actually, especially where professional degrees such as medicine, law, and engineering are concerned, because there can be a lot of familial pressure to enter these fields. Andrew Yang's story isn't all that uncommon, for example, and my impression is that many more people stay in that line of work than ever feel capable of leaving it. I personally know a fair few lawyers who absolutely loathe their day-jobs working for big firms, but who feel trapped into doing it forever. I've met a few doctors who hated their jobs, too, although IIRC they all ended up leaving medicine.

I also think of students pressured into majoring in fields that they have no interest in or aptitude for.  That sounds like a recipe for both a miserable college experience and a stillborn effort at getting into a lucrative field.  If they're well-prepared and diligent students, they'll probably be okay eventually.  But they could experience a lot of trouble in the meantime that might have been avoided if they had been allowed to major into something more congenial.

Mediocre students aren't going to get into medicine or engineering in the first place. Especially ones who aren't motivated.

In some fields, very few who try can get reliable, living-wage employment. It makes no sense to encourage someone to go into these fields professionally, as they can enjoy them as hobbies. Someone with an interest in these fields might be much better off pursuing a career with enough pay and leisure time to pursue hobbies.

But majoring as an undergrad in a field like English or history or what have you doesn't mean you're condemned to try making a go of it in a nearly-impossible employment field!  Graduate majors in these areas often regret it, yes, but undergrad majors in such fields have much better prospects.  No, they don't have the direct pipeline to lucrative fields that MDs and engineers do.  Again, though, they can't all be MDs and engineers.  There are many, many work fields that don't have such a direct college-to-profession pipeline for which a good undergrad humanities major can be quite competitive. 

So why shouldn't they major in a field they have an honest interest in, especially since that means they'll likely be encouraged to try harder and get a better education in a major they like?  I've noticed that lately even business magazines are publishing articles that make the point that a poor, unmotivated STEM major is probably not going to do as well as a solid, interested major in a less obviously lucrative field.

This is the point I've made several times. Unexceptional students who are not highly motivated aren't good candidates for anything. The problem isn't all the bright students who want to do humanities who are being siphoned off into other things; the problem is all of the indifferent students who are being encouraged to do humanities because it doesn't require math and keeps the enrollment up. Students who don't know what they want to do should be encouraged to get some sort of job and work for a year or two until they decide whether they want to study something, and if so, what. Motivated students will do better in school and have better job prospects on graduation.

[Stockmann]

...The much more realistic approach is to think of all kinds of things that you don't mind doing, and trying to identify any of those that lead more directly to solid employment. The example I've given before is that having kids who were all musical and enjoyed theatre, I never encouraged those as career choices because those rarely lead to reliable employment. They can still be enjoyable hobbies, and decent employment will allow time and money to pursue them.

This. In some fields, very few who try can get reliable, living-wage employment. It makes no sense to encourage someone to go into these fields professionally, as they can enjoy them as hobbies. Someone with an interest in these fields might be much better off pursuing a career with enough pay and leisure time to pursue hobbies.

But majoring as an undergrad in a field like English or history or what have you doesn't mean you're condemned to try making a go of it in a nearly-impossible employment field!  Graduate majors in these areas often regret it, yes, but undergrad majors in such fields have much better prospects.  No, they don't have the direct pipeline to lucrative fields that MDs and engineers do.  Again, though, they can't all be MDs and engineers.  There are many, many work fields that don't have such a direct college-to-profession pipeline for which a good undergrad humanities major can be quite competitive. 

So why shouldn't they major in a field they have an honest interest in, especially since that means they'll likely be encouraged to try harder and get a better education in a major they like?  I've noticed that lately even business magazines are publishing articles that make the point that a poor, unmotivated STEM major is probably not going to do as well as a solid, interested major in a less obviously lucrative field.

I meant going into a field both in a more specific (what specific type of career rather than broadly whether it's STEM, humanities, etc) and broader terms - not just choice of major, but choice of electives, what skills they choose to focus on, what type of internships, temp jobs, etc they seek, what they look for in their choice of institution. Thus if English majors in the US have decent prospects, majoring in English in the US isn't a problem. I'm not tarring all of the humanities with one brush.

Unexceptional students who are not highly motivated aren't good candidates for anything. The problem isn't all the bright students who want to do humanities who are being siphoned off into other things; the problem is all of the indifferent students who are being encouraged to do humanities because it doesn't require math and keeps the enrollment up. Students who don't know what they want to do should be encouraged to get some sort of job and work for a year or two until they decide whether they want to study something, and if so, what. Motivated students will do better in school and have better job prospects on graduation.

This, so much. Students who aren't particularly interested in anything should work for a year or two while they decide if and what to study in college. Mediocre students majoring in something in the humanities becase No math! is a recipe for disaster.
Loosely paraphrasing a conversation I had with a teenager some time ago, I think one should focus not on what one is going to study while in college, but in what career goals one has. Choice of major, institution, electives, internships, etc should be seen as part of a path - you should choose a path that takes you where you want to go, and choice of goal should involve a realistic appraisal of your chances.

[polly_mer]

So why shouldn't they major in a field they have an honest interest in, especially since that means they'll likely be encouraged to try harder and get a better education in a major they like?

Why is someone in college? 

People who come from affluent-enough families and neighborhoods where college is 4-5 years of activities before settling down can afford (in an opportunity cost sense) to spend those years in a one-off major doing interesting things that won't directly translate to a job.  Those folks already are literate enough, numerate enough, and networked enough with social capital that they aren't relying on college to help them move economic classes.

During one of these discussions, someone directly asked me how many poor kids major in the humanities and then get stuck in bad jobs after graduation.  I still don't have a solid answer because:

* Poor kids like me go to college at much, much lower rates than more affluent kids.  Financial aid for direct college costs doesn't make up for the loss of our labor (paid or unpaid) to keep our families and neighborhoods afloat.

* Poor kids like me who get to college at all finish college at much, much lower rates than more affluent kids.  A rich not-great student is much more likely to finish college than a stellar poor kid because college completion is seldom about intellectual ability and is more about having a stable enough life to focus.

* Poor kids like me increasingly start college part-time close enough to home that we can work or otherwise support the family.  While education may be long term important, short term logistics mean we are working (or providing care taking) to ensure food is on the table and a roof is over the heads.  That situation means that if anything goes wrong, we drop out of school for the term and intend to go back, but maybe that happens and maybe that doesn't because we didn't get to put our real lives on pause to be residential college students with perhaps a part-time job for a little spending money.

* Poor kids like me have no fallback position to middle class if something doesn't work out. There's no romantic "oh, money is tight for a few years in college so I will shop in the thrift shops and eat cheaply on noodles and rice towards the end of the month".   No, we're starting from hand-me-downs and the practically free bin at Goodwill.  We never get above noodles, rice, and beans.  We splurge a couple times a year by eating at McDonald's.  Years ago, these fora made fun of an article where someone was instructing us how to live on a tight budget in grad school and that budget was $50k, which was almost the median household income in the US at the time.

Yeah, it's nice to think that one could just play around for a few years, have an entry level position doing something office-like, and then be solidly middle class by age 25 by majoring in whatever one likes in college.  That's a position of privilege that is not available to many of us and  it's much more akin to "well, sometimes you have to break into the capital of the trust fund during a rough couple months" than a real option that is available to most college goers.

Sure, doing something half-assed is less likely to go to success than something one really wants.  However, some of us don't have the luxury of going with dreams and instead have to be a damn grown-up to pick something at which we can make a good go that will result in food on the table, a roof overhead, and fun things like paid sick leave, subsidized health insurance that covers most medical treatment, and matching contributions to a retirement fund.

[mamselle]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone advise people to go into careers they hate just because the money is good.

I think we hear about it second- and third-hand pretty frequently, actually, especially where professional degrees such as medicine, law, and engineering are concerned, because there can be a lot of familial pressure to enter these fields. Andrew Yang's story isn't all that uncommon, for example, and my impression is that many more people stay in that line of work than ever feel capable of leaving it. I personally know a fair few lawyers who absolutely loathe their day-jobs working for big firms, but who feel trapped into doing it forever. I've met a few doctors who hated their jobs, too, although IIRC they all ended up leaving medicine.

I also think of students pressured into majoring in fields that they have no interest in or aptitude for.  That sounds like a recipe for both a miserable college experience and a stillborn effort at getting into a lucrative field.  If they're well-prepared and diligent students, they'll probably be okay eventually.  But they could experience a lot of trouble in the meantime that might have been avoided if they had been allowed to major into something more congenial.

Think, "Dead Poets Society,"

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye4KFyWu2do

M.

[marshwiggle]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone advise people to go into careers they hate just because the money is good.

I think we hear about it second- and third-hand pretty frequently, actually, especially where professional degrees such as medicine, law, and engineering are concerned, because there can be a lot of familial pressure to enter these fields. Andrew Yang's story isn't all that uncommon, for example, and my impression is that many more people stay in that line of work than ever feel capable of leaving it. I personally know a fair few lawyers who absolutely loathe their day-jobs working for big firms, but who feel trapped into doing it forever. I've met a few doctors who hated their jobs, too, although IIRC they all ended up leaving medicine.

I also think of students pressured into majoring in fields that they have no interest in or aptitude for.  That sounds like a recipe for both a miserable college experience and a stillborn effort at getting into a lucrative field.  If they're well-prepared and diligent students, they'll probably be okay eventually.  But they could experience a lot of trouble in the meantime that might have been avoided if they had been allowed to major into something more congenial.

Think, "Dead Poets Society,"

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye4KFyWu2do

M.

Dead Poets Society is to higher education kind of what Cinderella is to marriage.

[Caracal]

[

Yeah, it's nice to think that one could just play around for a few years, have an entry level position doing something office-like, and then be solidly middle class by age 25 by majoring in whatever one likes in college.  That's a position of privilege that is not available to many of us and  it's much more akin to "well, sometimes you have to break into the capital of the trust fund during a rough couple months" than a real option that is available to most college goers.

Sure, doing something half-assed is less likely to go to success than something one really wants.  However, some of us don't have the luxury of going with dreams and instead have to be a damn grown-up to pick something at which we can make a good go that will result in food on the table, a roof overhead, and fun things like paid sick leave, subsidized health insurance that covers most medical treatment, and matching contributions to a retirement fund.

This is what I mean about the evidence free theorizing. The Mellon foundation issues a whole report on this.

https://mellon.org/news-blog/articles/economic-benefits-and-costs-liberal-arts-education/

One key point they make "Choice of major and/or occupation may have more to do with preferences and abilities than what one is qualified to do upon graduation from any particular college or university as a result of that education."

There's a lot of it, and they don't reach any incredibly clear conclusions, but that's sort of the point. Simplistic argument about income and career outcomes isn't backed up by the actual evidence. Some of it is pretty clearly contradicted by the evidence.

[marshwiggle]

https://mellon.org/news-blog/articles/economic-benefits-and-costs-liberal-arts-education/

I'm just partway through, but one statement I can't recall seeing before caught my eye:

Bachelor's degree recipients in the sciences and math have similar starting salaries to those with humanities, social science, professional, and pre-professional degrees, but over time, their earnings increase at a faster rate.

Another intersting quote:

The evidence of the returns to different majors is not unrelated to the fact that the labor market rewards different occupations differently, for a variety of reasons.  The relative supply and demand for particular types of labor plays a large role.

Not surprising, but hard to get through to a lot of people. Applies to degrees as well as occupations.